DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 433 326
SP 038 740
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
Grossman, Stuart; Osterman, Karen; Schmelkin, Liora Pedhazur
Parent Involvement: The Relationship between Beliefs and
Practices .
1999-04-19
32p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (Montreal , Quebec, April
19-23, 1999) .
Reports - Research (143) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
MF01/PC02 Plus Postage .
Middle Schools; *Parent Attitudes; *Parent Participation;
♦Parent Role; *Parent School Relationship; Parent Teacher
Cooperation; Self Efficacy; Teacher Attitudes
ABSTRACT
This study explored parents' beliefs and practices regarding
participation in the schools, investigating why they chose to become involved
and the types of involvement that were meaningful to them. Researchers mailed
surveys to parents of middle school children from two schools in Nassau
County, New York, that differed in size, ethnic population, and socioeconomic
status. Parents were asked to identity beliefs used in constructing the
manner and style of involvement, classify specific practices performed, and
describe the person completing the questionnaire. Overall, parents felt
positive about themselves and their relationship with schools, feeling
welcomed and valued by schools. They made independent, personal choices in
deciding the level and manner of involvement, unrelated to their perceptions
of school practice and teacher attitudes. They considered their role in
parenting and academic support very important. Their preferred form of
involvement was providing support at home. They were less involved in
communication with schools or activities related to school events. Parents
distinguished between feeling welcomed and valued by schools and being
encouraged by teachers to be directly involved in academically supporting of
their children. They felt teachers did not encourage them to provide direct
academic support. Parents reported a high degree of self-efficacy regarding
themselves and their ability to support their child. Overall, there was a
meaningful relationship between parents' beliefs and practices. (Contains 42
references.) (SM)
********************************************************************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
***********************************************************
'SPO%Sj<td>
Parent Involvement:
The Relationship between Beliefs and Practices
VO
<N
cn
Q
W
Stuart Grossman
Karen Osterman
Liora Pedhazur Schmelkin
Hofstra University
EDAKFO@Hofstra.edu
Paper presented at the annal Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19, 1999.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
2
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
□ This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
1
It is clear from the research that parent involvement
plays an important role in the academic success of children.
Chavkin and Williams Jr. (1989) concluded that "Recent, research
has made an overwhelming case for parent involvement in
children's education. The evidence that parent involvement
improves student achievement is now incontrovertible" (p. 1).
The preponderance of research shows that parent involvement
benefits the learning and achievement levels of students
(Chavkin, 1993; Comer, 1986; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein,
1983, 1987, 1990; Herman & Yeh, 1983; Hobbs, Dolecki, Hoover-
Dempsey, Moroney, Shayne, & Weeks, 1984; Keith, Keith, Bickley
& Singh, 1992) .
Despite this, studies report that parents have little or
no involvement with schools (e.g. assisting teachers at school,
attending school events or communicating with teachers)
( (Be^-ker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein, 1987; Epstein & Becker,
1982). According to Eccles and Harold (1993),
Both teachers and parents think that family involvement in
the school is important end can have positive effects. So
why is it that parents are not more involved with the
schools? Lack of family involvement can stem from various
parent characteristics and experiences .... and lack of
family involvement can stem from various school and
teacher practices, (p. 569)
The primary purpose of this study was to explore parents'
beliefs and their relationship to parents' practices, in order
to better understand why parents choose to become involved and
ERIC
3
the types of involvement that are meaningful and important to
them.
The literature identifies tw ' sets of factors that have
the strongest influence on parent involvement: 1) beliefs of
the parents themselves and 2) the attitudes, actions, and
practices of teachers and schools.
Parents are more likely to be involved when they feel
welcome in supporting the educational needs of their children
(Ames et al. 1993, Brian, 1994; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, &
Burow, 1995; Lareau, 1987; Okey & Cusick, 1995) .
Research shows that parents want to be involved but often
feel excluded by teachers, who, they believe make judgments
about their level of interest and ability on the basis of their
socioeconomic status (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein (1986)
Epstein & Dauber, 1989) .
The issue of efficacy is also an important one for
parents. In describing the construct of efficacy, Bandura
(1989) states, "Among the mechanisms of personal agency, none
is more central or pervasive than peoples • belief s about their
capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their
lives" (p. 1175) . Parents who have a low sense of their
abilities will shy away from being involved with a child's
education (Bandura, 1993) . They develop a personal construct
to help determine the manner and style of their involvement
with their child and his/her school. As Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (1995) state, "We also believe that parents become
involved because they have a sense of personal efficacy for
helping their children succeed in school" (p. 313) .
Within schools, teachers have the most direct influence on
parent involvement. Parents are more involved when teachers
openly encourage them and develop program initiatives that
support parent involvement (Epstein, 1988; Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 1987, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Burow, 1995; Podell
& Soodak, 1993) . While most teachers espouse support for
parent involvement, few initiate programs or seem to possess
strong underlying beliefs in parent involvement and its
outcomes (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Brian, 1994; Epstein &
Dauber, 1989) .
Research also suggests that teacher attitudes vary based
on parents' socioeconomic status, with some teachers having a
preconceived view of low socioeconomic (SES) parents. They
tend to see these parents in a negative light, disinterested in
their child's education and unable to help teachers (Davies,
1988; Hoover-Dempsey et al . , 1987; Lareau, 1987; Okey & Cusick,
1995; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Powell, 1978; Stevenson & Baker,
1987) .
Administrators affect parent involvement on two levels:
they institute practices, procedures, and policies on a school-
wide basis that involve parents; secondly, through the
attitudes and beliefs they express, they influence teacher
support for and participation in programs that encourage parent
involvement (Epstein, 1987, 1990; Chavkin & Williams Jr.,'
1987) .
5
o
4
School support for parent involvement can influence
teacher perceptions and thereby directly and indirectly affect
parent involvement (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein, 1987;
Epstein & Dauber, 1989) . As Epstein and Dauber (1989) found
from their study of 171 educators in elementary and middle
schools, teachers' attitudes about parent involvement are
positive when school-wide programs are in place.
Much of the research on parent involvement has focused on
outcome, primarily as it relates to student achievement,
parental preference for and actual levels of involvement,
teacher beliefs and practices that influence parent
involvement, and the role of school administrators and their
practices. Many studies are descriptive in nature; examining
parent practices that attempt to quantify specific acts and the
frequency with which they occur (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Brian,
1994; Goodson & Hess, 1996; Stevenson & Baker, 1987) .
Although research highlights the importance of parent
beliefs as related to engendering positive and sustaining
involvement (Ames et al., 1993; Becker & Epstein, 1982; Hoover-
Dempsey & Jones, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995), there
are relatively few studies that specifically address this
issue. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) suggest that parent
involvement models should include personal construct variables
that parents develop to determine the extent and type of
involvement they will have. They state:
We believe that parents become involved in their
children's education primarily as a function of the
1
6
• 5
parents' role construction, the parent sense of
efficacy for helping his or her child succeed in school,
and the general opportunities and demands for involvement
presented to children and tneir schools, (p. 326)
As the authors note, while role construction, efficacy and
school experiences are conceptually linked to parent
involvement, this relationship has not yet been fully explored
and empirically established.
In addition, there is a dearth of research about parent
■ «•
involvement in the middle schools. Because of the cognitive,
social, and emotional changes that occur during this age span,
parents play a particularly important role in the
interdisciplinary approach of middle schools (Colemen, 1994;
Harnett, 1991; National Association of Secondary School,
Principals, 1995; St. Clair & Hough, 1992) .
Building on the conceptual models developed by Hoover-
Dempsey and Sandler, this study examined
1. The beliefs parents have about parent involvement, (self-
efficacy, beliefs about schools, and parental role
construction) .
2. Parents reported practices of four dimensions of parental
involvement (parent awareness, direct instruction at home,
parents as nurturers/supporters and parent activities in
school) .
3. The rela'tionship between these beliefs and practices. *
7
6
Method
A survey questionnaire specifically developed for this
study was mailed to 1695 parcints of middle school children
(6th, 7th, and 8th grade) in two middle schools in Nassau
County, New York, a suburban area 25 miles outside of New York
City. The schools differ with respect to size, ethnic
population, and socioeconomic status.
The total number of surveys mailed to School A was 1075.
Parents completed and returned 641 surveys, a return rate of
60%. The total number of surveys mailed to School B was 620.
Parents returned 194 completed surveys, a return rate of 31%.
Overall, 835 questionnaires were completed and returned, at a
rate of 49%.
School A has a total population of 1,159 students
consisting of 608 boys and 551 girls. The student body is
predominantly Caucasian (85-&) with 3% African-American, 5%
Latino and 7% Asian American. Ten percent of the students
receive a federally subsidized free or reduced lunch. The
respondents were primarily female (85.5%) with approximately
equal numbers being parents of 6*^*^, 7'^’^ and 8"*^ grade students.
In terms of the educational level, the School A sample was
approximately evenly divided among the respondents who
completed high school, completed college or completed graduate
or professional school.
School B has a population of 620 students consisting of
292 boys and 328 girls with 64% African-American, 27% Latino,
5% Caucasian, and 4% other. Eighty- three percent of the
students receive a federally subsidized free or reduced lunch.
Similar to School A, the respondents were primarily female
(82.5%), with approximately equal numbers being parents of
and 8'*^ grade students. Contrary to School A, in School B
12.4% did not complete high school, 39.7% completed high
school, 26.3% completed college and 21.6% completed graduate or
professional school.
Instrument
The parent questionnaire contained various rating scales
organized into four sections that asked parents to identify
various beliefs they use in constructing the manner and style
of their involvement, classify specific practices they
performed, and provide descriptive information about the person
filling out the questionnaire.
The first section contained 21 questions dealing with two
aspects of parent beliefs: self-efficacy and parents' beliefs
about schools and teachers. For the purpose of this study,
self-efficacy was defined as the degree to which parents
believe they have the ability to exert a positive influence in
helping their child achieve academic success (Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1997) . Parent beliefs about schools was defined as
whether parents feel respected, welcomed, supported, and
encouraged by schools. Parents were asked to agree or disagree
using six options ranging from agree very strongly to disagree
very strongly.
In the second section, 23 questions related to role
construction examined the way that parents define and establish
g
a basic range of activities that they feel are important,
necessary, and meaningful for them to support the education of
their child. Parents were asked ^.o indicate their beliefs
about the importance of each form of involvement using response
options ranging from not important to very important on a 5-
point scale.
The third section had two parts containing a total of 20
questions that examined actual parent practices. Joyce
Epstein' s parent involvement model was used to develop the
specific items in the survey. It is used as a source in a
number of studies and articles seeking to define aspects of
parent involvement (Ames et al., 1993; Brian, 1994; Eccles &
Harold, 1993; Chapman, 1991; Davies, 1991; Dietz, 1992;
Epstein, 1986, 1987, 1990; Epstein & Dauber, 1989; Foster,
1993; Friedman, 1993; Grolnick, Apostoleris, & Rosen, 1995;
Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Using Epstein's typology the
items relate to four categories of parent practices. The first
deals with parents as nurturers and supporters providing
encouragement at home, being a role model, and reinforcing
school rules. The second category related to parent awareness,
being informed and aware of school goals. The third category
concerned direct parent involvement in school~based events and
activities. The fourth category in this section referred to
parent practices regarding supervision and direct instruction
at home .
In this section, parents rated the frequency of these
practices on a 5-point scale ranging from never to often. Part
er|c
10
One of this section contained 14 questions and part two
contained 6 questions. The distinction for these two parts
concerns the frequency of an activity. Clearly the tern
"often" takes on a different meaning when parents are asked
about attendance at school board meetings versus making
breakfast for their child. Since the questions in both parts
are frequency of occurrence questions, use the same categories
to develop items, and have the same rating scale, they were
considered as one section for the purposes of analysis.
■ ^
The fourth section in this questionnaire contained 5
demographic items concerned with the grade of the child in the
middle school, parent's level of education, gender and parent'
own experience in school.
Results
All tests of significance used q=. 05. In order to be
considered meaningful, results had to account for a minimum of
10% of the variance (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Factor Analysis
Each of the major sections of the questionnaire were
factor analyzed and subjected to an iterated principal axis
common factor analysis. Squared multiple correlations as
initial estimates of communality were used. The unit of
analysis was the parent, with item responses constituting the
data input. Both orthogonal (uncorrelated) and oblique
(correlated) rotations were examined to determine a final
solution. Loadings >.4 were considered meaningful for factor
interpretation as well as for selection of items for subscales
10
Items that did not load on any factor were not considered.
Efficacy/beliefs about schools.
The oblique three factor solution was retained as the
final solution for interpretation. The pattern and structure
matrices of the three factor oblique solutions are presented in
Table 1.
Factor 1 (3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18)
contains items that focus on parents feeling welcomed and
valued by schools. The factor was named WELCOME /VALUED. Factor
■ m
2 consists of three items (4, 5, and 7) . They deal with the
parents' sense of their ability to succeed when helping their
child. Consequently, this factor was named EFFICACY. The
third factor has three meaningful items (19, 20, and 21) .
These items focus on parents who feel encouraged by teachers to
be involved and to provide academic support for their child.
This factor was named ENCOURAGEMENT.
Based on the results of the factor analysis for the first
section, three factor-based scales were constructed:
Wei come /Valued, Efficacy^ Encouragement. Scoring was
obtained by averaging the items that loaded on each factor and
then creating three scale scores for each parent; each score
ranging from 1 to 7 (the initial items which were on a 6 point
scale were re-coded to a 7 point scale to allow for missing
data). The means score for efficacy was 5.31 for
welcomed/valued, 5.29 and for encouragement, 5.08.
An examination of the numbers suggests that parents, as a
11
Table 1 Factor Loadings-Ef f icacy and Beliefs about Schools
Pattern
Matrix
1 ■
Structure
Matrix
Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor. 3
Factor
1 Factor
2 Factor 3
1.
.29
.05
.03
.30
.16
.13
2.
R
.39
. 15
.04
.47
.32
.28
3.
.67
.10
.04
. 65
. 17
.34
4.
R
.02
.43
.14
.26
.48
.28
5.
R
.00
.83
.02
.32
. 82
.23
6.
.42
. 15
.01
.47
.31
.24
7.
R
.08
.73
.01
. 38
.77
.28
8.
.76
.01
.13
.70
.27
.24
9.
R
.69
.01
.08
.74
.31
.43
10.
R
.55
.20
.04
. 66
. 44
.39
11 .
.65
.06
.04
. 66
.31
.30
12 .
R
.43
.17
.02
.51
.35
.29
13.
.50
.04
.02
.47
. 14
.20
14.
R
.55
.03
.18
.66
.31
.47
15.
R
.46
.04
.15
.55
.27
.39
16.
R
.70
.05
.20
.77
.28
.53
17.
.74
.18
.00
.67
.11
.31
18.
R
.59
.03
.09
. 62
.23
.38
19.
.09
.08
.73
.30
.27
.71
20.
.28
.02
.61
. 60
.33
.76
21 .
.17
.01
.69
.51
.27
.77
• Retained meaningful loadings (> .4) are boldfaced/underiined.
• Items numbers with an R were reversed to have higher mean
scores reflect a more positive response.
13
12
group, have positive feelings about themselves and their
relationship with schools. An examination of the three factors
suggest that parents are somewhat less encouraged by teachers
to provide academic support for their children, but
nevertheless feel welcomed and valued by schools. Coefficient
alpha, estimates of reliability were .89 for the welcome/valued
factor, .73 for the efficacy factor, and .89 for the
encouragement factor.
Role construction.
The oblique three factor solution was retained as the
final solution for the 23 role construction items. The pattern
and structure matrices of the three factor oblique solutions
are presented in Table 2.
The items loading on factor 1 (5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, and
15) deal with parents giving support and nurturing to their
chiluren. This factor was named PARENTING. The items on
factor 2 (1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 16, and 18) focus on activities that
deal with parent communication with the school. This factor
was given the name Communication/School . The third factor
contains 3 items (17, 20, and 21) that relate to parents
providing academic support at home. This factor was named
Academic Support.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, three scale
scores were constructed for the second section: Parenting,
Communication/School , and Academic Support. The scores range
from 1 to 5. The mean score for parenting was 4.63, for
academic support, 4.41 and for communication/school, 3.38.
13
Table 2 Factor Loadings-Role Construction
Pattern Matrix Structure Matrix
Item
Factor 1
Factor
2 Factor 3
Factor
1 Factor 2
Factor 3
1.
.12
.49
.11
.14
.48
.25
2.
.14
.34
.11
.35
.45
.33
3.
.34
.56
. 15
.50
. 64
.25
4.
.03
.70
.02
.27
.70
.29
5.
.73
.00
.00
.72
.30
.36
6.
.60
. 12
.01
. 66
.39
.37
7.
.66
.14
.18
. 69
.20
.46
8.
.36
.54
.13
.52
. 64
.27
9.
.47
.02
. 06
.50
.21
.30
10.
. 03
.68
. 01
.26
. 67
.27
11.
.16
.22
.39
.46
.45
.57
12.
.54
.05
.10
. 61
.32
.40
13.
.69
.01
.03
.70
.29
.38
14.
.47
.17
.00
.54
.37
.32
15.
.65
.09
. 06
. 64
.21
.36
16.
.13
.58
.06
.41
.66
.36
17.
.35
.02
.43
.57
.30
. 61
18.
.09
.71
.16
.29
.74
.40
19.
.08
.21
.35
.36
.39
.48
20.
.00
.03
.71
.38
.32
.72
21.
.16
.01
.66
.50
.32
.74
22.
.06
.16 ■
.28
.28
.30
.39 ■
23.
.46
.32
.00
. 60
.52
.37
• Retained meaningful
loadings (>
.4) are
boldfaced/underlined
15
14
The numbers for the parenting and academic support factors
suggest that parents find these two areas important. However,
there is r'ore homogeneity of responses in the parenting factor
with a standard deviation of .47 and a greater spread in the
academic support factor (1.33). This suggests that parents are
in agreement to a greater degree when it comes to parenting
issues. Communication/school has the smallest mean of the role
construction factors, suggesting that parents do not see this
as meaningful as the parenting and academic support factors.
■
The reliabilities for the role construction factors were .84
for parenting, .83 for communication/school and .76 for
academic support.
Parent practices.
A careful examination determined that the four factor
solution was found to be more interpretable. The only factor
that is not correlated with any other is factor 2. However,
given that the remaining correlations are meaningful, the
oblique four factor solution was retained for interpretation.
The pattern and structure matrices of the four factor oblique
solutions are presented in Table 3.
Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 14 load on factor 1. These
items focus on parents' communication with schools and teachers
and supervising the progress of their child. This factor was
named Communication/Progress . Four items (11, 15, 18, and 19)
load on factor 2. They focus on the non-academic support
parents give to their child. This factor was named
Support/Nurture .
16
15
Table 3
Factor Loadings-Four Factor Oblique Solution: Parent Practices
Pattern Matrix
Structure Matrix
Factor
Factor
Item
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1.
.65
.01
.07
.04
. 68
.16
.20
.34
2.
.05
.01
.71
. 06
. 17
.23
.71
.18
3.
.40
.14
. 10
. 13
.46
.26
.06
.35
4.
. 05
■ m
. 03
.04
.67
.33
.29
. 16
.66
5.
.41
.06
. 08
.28
.53
.19
.23
.45
6.
.05
.06
.63
. 10
.21
.21
. 66
.29
7.
.74
. 01
. 15
. 05
. 80
.24
.32
.43
8.
.06
. 17
. 12
.19
.21
.33
.26
.35
9.
.71
.06
.21
.03
. 78
.29
. 38
.44
10.
.02
.09
. 00
.66
.28
.42
.22
. 69
11.
.23
.43
. 07
. 07
.34
.49
. 13
.37
12.
.17
. 01
.69
. 05
.28
.25
.72
.24
13.
.47
.04
. 31
. 08
.58
.28
.45
.41
14.
.57
.23
. 02
.06
. 65
. 39
.23
.44
15.
.18
.49
.07
. 03
.37
. 35
.22
.86
16.
. 00
.10
.02
. 92
.37
.35
.22
.86
17.
.04
.06
.01
. 67
.35
.42
.25
.73
18.
.18
.40
.18
.16
. 00
. 50
.33
.34
19.
. 00
.71
. 03
. 04
.14
.70
.26
.33
20.
.29
.30
.26
. 09
.14
. 38
.33
.20
• Retained meaningful loadings (> .4) are boldfaced/underlined.
16
There are three items (2, 6, 12) that load on factor 3. This
factor was named School Events. The last factor contains 4
items (4, 10, 16, and 17) . Ther.e ^tem^s center on parents
providing direct academic support for their children. This
factor was named Learning ac Home.
Based on the results, four factor-based scales were
constructed for the third section: Communication/Progress,
Support/Nurture, School Events, and Learning at Home.
Four scale scores were created with ranges from 1 to 5 .
The mean score for support/nurture was 4.07, for learning at
home, 3.83, for communication, 3.15 and for school events,
2.18. Parents indicated their preferred form of involvement
centered on providing support for their children at home,
followed by academic help at home, suggesting that parents
perform these practices fairly regularly. On the low medium
range are parents activities involving communication with
school. Finally, as a group, parents were less involved in
activities related to school events. This factor also had the
most spread (SD = 1.10) suggesting that parents had a greater
diversity in the range of their involvement with this level of
parent practices. The coefficient for communication/progress
was .85, school events, .76, and learning at home, .82, all
appropriately reliable. The support/nurture factor was less
reliable at .59. Therefore, this scale is somewhat weaker and
will need to be examined in more detail in the future.
17
The relationship Between Beliefs and Practices
In order to explore the relationship between the practice
variables (4 sets) and the belief variables (6 sets), a
canonical correlation analysis was performed.
With four variables in one set and six in the other set,
at most four canonical correlations can result. Testing all
four canonical correlations together in an omnibus test yields
statistical significance (A=.31; F=46. 29711; df=24, 3290;
p<.05). Subsequently, each canonical correlation was examined
-
for significance and all four were found to be statistically
significant. However, only the first three are potentially
meaningful. In order to decide the number of canonical
correlations to interpret further, the redundancy coefficient
was examined. The 1st redundancy coefficient for practice is
24% and the 1st coefficient for belief is 16%, with the three
remaining sets 5% or below. Therefore, the redundancy
coefficient as well as the relationship within each canonical
set makes it clear that oni'_y the first one is meaningful and
appropriate for discussion in this study. Standardized and
structure coefficients were utilized to interpret the nature of
the relationship between practice and belief.
An examination of the four practice variables in
the first variate shows that they all have meaningful structure
coefficients. Squaring each of the structure coefficients
indicates the proportion of variance that they share with the
canonical variate. For example, learning at home shares 72% of
the proportion of variance with its own canonical variate and
18
the other three share between 42% to 46%. Learning at home
appears to have much more importance in this correlation. An
examination of the structure coefficients for the six beliefs
in the first variate reveals that five have meaningful
structure coefficients, the most important ones being
communication/school (68%) and academic support (64%). The
variable welcome/valued is not meaningful (3% of the variance)
and the efficacy and encouragement variables account for 17-19%
of the variance. It appears that overall the first relation is
with all four practice variables and five belief variables. It
should be noted that the role construction variables are more
important than the efficacy/beliefs about schools variables in
their relationship with parent practices.
In order to see if there are significant differences
between School A and School B, a one-way Manova was performed.
The independent variable was school and the dependent variables
were the 6 belief and the 4 practice variables. The overall
Manova is statistically significant (A=.83; F=16. 05920; df=10,
823; p<.05). An analysis of the effect size shows that 16% of
the variance is accounted for by group membership. In order to
interpret which variables are important, the discriminant
function was examined.
The squared structure coefficients reveal that the
welcome/valued belief and the support/nurture practice do
not play a meaningful role in understanding the
differences between the two schools. All of the other
variables appear to play some role in the overall
20
difference between the two schools. The most important
differences deal with communication/progress (a practice
variable) and communication/school (a belief variable) .
19
Discussion
Tt seems clear that any review of parent involvement by
researchers, schools and teachers must begin with the
assumption that there is a strong relationship between parent
beliefs and parent practices. This study finds that parents
first make independent and personal choices in deciding the
level and manner of their involvement, unrelated to their
perception of school practices and teacher attitudes. Parents
who feel personally empowered will develop beliefs about which
activities are meaningful to them. As a result, they become
involved in a variety of parent practices that support their
feelings about parent involvement.
Parents in this study feel welcomed and valued by schools
and teachers, but their decisions about parent involvement
appear to be unrelated to these perceptions. Parents are
comfortable talking to teachers, feel respected, and believe
teachers are interested in them as parents. In this study,
school and teacher factors do not appear to play an important
role in how a parent chooses to become involved to support
their child.
Parents distinguish between feeling welcomed and valued by
schools and being encouraged by teachers to be directly
involved in the academic support of their child. They feel
that teachers do not encourage them to provide direct academic
ERIC
20
support. Although our study suggests that parents' level of
involvement is affected more by their personal choices than the
attitude of teachers, certain types of involvement may be
tempered by this perception. The findings in this study are
consistent with prior research showing that teachers want
parents to be "seen and not heard" in matters pertaining to
academic involvement.
Based primarily on their personal beliefs about parent
practices, parents report that meaningful and important
activities (role construction) include making sure homework is
done, setting rules at home, getting information about the
child's progress, helping with school projects, and being
available to help with homework.
Communication with schools rated as a somewhat important
parent practice, but parents viewed school related activities,
such as attending PTA meetings, helping in the classroom, and
going on field trips as re].atively unimportant.
Parents in this study report a high degree of self-
efficacy regarding themselves and their ability to support
their child. They feel that if they work hard on behalf of
their child, they can engender change. Parents are confident
that when they make plans to help their child, they can
succeed.
Parents' practices fall into four categories. Their most
frequent parent activities involve providing support and
nurture at home. Parents in this study place a greater
emphasis on home rather than school-based activities. They
21
support and encourage their children in a variety of non-
academic activities (supervision, discipline, regulating
television) .
Providing academic support is an extremely important
aspect of parent involvement. Parents in this study find this
activity important despite evidence in the research that
schools are not comfortable with this aspect of parent
involvement. Parents in this study want to provide academic
support for their children by helping with homework, projects,
and studying for examinations.
The communication factor falls on the low end of the
scale. Parents in this study do not actively carry out
activities that center on communication with schools and
teachers. These numbers may reflect parents' perception of not
being encouraged by schools and teachers to take an active role
in school-based learning. As a result, they may communicate
less with the school and turn instead to providing support at
home .
When it comes to school related activities, parents report
very low levels of activity in this practice. They do not find
these activities necessary, helpful to their child, or
convenient based on work and family commitments. What has
traditionally been viewed as "parent involvement" by schools
may no longer be relevant given the dynamics of our world and
the families 'of these middle school children.
The canonical correlation analysis determined that overall
there is a meaningful relationship between parent beliefs and
23
22
practices. Further analysis of the data revealed a nuinber of
interesting elements to this relationship. The only variable
not raeaningful in this relationship is the welcome/valued
belief factor. This is consistent with our findings that
parent beliefs play a greater role than schools and teachers in
determining the degree of parent involvement.
Among the four practice sets, learning at home is the most
important variable contributing to the relationship between
beliefs and practices. Among the six belief sets, the most
important variables are communication and academic support.
These two fall within the role construction set, reinforcing
the link between this belief factor and practice.
The Manova analysis found that there were differences
between School A and School B on all but two variables. The
exceptions are feeling welcomed and valued by schools (belief)
and support and nurture (practice) . Since the means of these
factors were high and there was agreement between schools about
their relative meaning, there would be no meaningful difference
regarding these variables. The analysis showed that parents in
both schools are in agreement that being welcomed by school is
not an important factor in determining the extent of their
involvement. It also seems clear that both schools have a
strong belief in the role of nurture and its relationship to
parent involvement. It is important to note that by a 2 to 1
margin. School A parents responded to the questionnaire mailed
to the home. This does not diminish the fact that the group of
School B parents who did respond reflect high levels of parent
24
23
involvement. It does raise a question regarding the School A
and School B parents who responded and what might be their
views regarding parent involvement.
The importance of parent involvement is based on the
assumption that it leads to student success. As a result,
schools continually look for ways to get parents "involved" and
increase the level of parent involvement. Schools make
assumptions about which types of parent practices are
associated with involvement and which types of involvement are
■ m
related to school success. Yet, schools define parent
involvement in a discrete manner that places an emphasis on
only the visible school-based activities. Schools appear to
have a mental model of what constitutes parent involvement
based on an historical perspective, school traditions or a
comfort with certain parent practices. They narrowly judge
parents' level of interest and support based on tiieir
attendance at PTA meetings, parent teacher conferences and
other traditional forms of parent involvement.
Schools are complex organizations that have developed
their own model of what parent involvement looks like and the
role parents should play. Many schools need to rethink their
views about parent involvement and expand its definition to
include practices that take place outside of school. In
particular, developing programs that foster learning at home
and non-academic support could be a powerful tool to increase
meaningful parent involvement practices and develop a
collaborative parent to school partnership.
25
24
References
Ames, C., Galletta, A., & Watkins, T. (1993).
Parent involvement: The relationship between school
to home communication and parents' perceptions and
beliefs (Report no. 15) . Center on Families,
Communities, Schools and Children's Learning:
Illinois University, Urbana College of Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 271).
Bandura, A. (1989) . Human agency in social cognitive theory.
American Psychologist, 44 (9) 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993) . Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive
development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,
^(2), 117-148.
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent
invoxvement: A survey of teacher practices. The
Elementary School Journal, 83 (2), 85-102.
Brian, D. (1994, April) . Parental involvement in high
schools . Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 374 526) .
Chapman, W. (1991). The Illinois experience.
Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 355-358.
26
25
Chavkin, N. F., & Williams, Jr., D. L. (1987).
Enhancing parent involvement. Guidelines for
access to an important resource for school
administrators. Education and Urban Society,
19 ( 2 ), 164-184.
Coleman, M. R. (1994) . Middle schools and
gifted-A natural fit. Exploring options. Gifted-
Child-Today, 17 (4), 38-39.
Comer, J. P. (1986) . Parent participation in the
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 67 ( 6) , 442-446 .
Davies, D. (1988) . Low-income parents and the
schools: A research report and a plan for action.
Equity and Choice, 4 (3), 51-54.
Davies, D. (1991) . Schools reaching out. Family,
school, and community partnerships for students
success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5), 376-382.
Dietz, M. J. (1992). Principals and parent involvement
in Wisconsin middle level public schools (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Wisconsin, 1978)
ProQuest-Dissertation Abstracts , AAC 9306401.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school
involvement during the early adolescent years.
Teachers College Record, 94 (3), 568-587.
Epstein, J. L. (1983). Longitudinal effects of
Family-school person interactions on student
outcomes. Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization 4, 101-127.
27
26
Epstein/ J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher
practices of parent involvement. The Elementary
School Journal/ 86 (3)/ 277-294.
Epstein/ J. L. (1986) . Toward an integrated
theory of school and family connections (Report
No. 3). Center for Research on Elementary and
Middle Schools (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 348 130) .
Epstein/ J. L. (1987) . Parent involvement: What
research says to administrators. Education and
Urban Society/ 19 (20)/ 119-136.
Epstein/ J. L. (1990). School and family connections:
theory/ research/ and implications for integrating
sociologies of education and family. In D. G.
Unger & M. B. Sussman (Ed.)/ Families in Community
Settings. Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.
99-125) Haworth Press.
Epstein/ J. L., & Becker/ H. J. (1982). Teachers'
reported practices of parent involvement: problems
and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal/
^(2)/ 103-113.
Epstein/ J. L., & Dauber/ S. L. (1989). Teacher
attitudes and practices of parent involvement in
inner-city elementary and middle schools (Report
No. 32) . Center for Research on Elementary and
Middle Schools/ Baltimore/ MD (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 314 151).
28
27
Fester, S. E. (1993). Types of parent Involvement:
Effeots on parent rating of sohools. (Masters
thesis, Simon Fraser University) . Pro-Quest
Dissertation Abstraots , AAC MM91110.
Friedman, D. E. (1993) . New York State's polioy on
parent involvement: From oonoept to implementation
(sohool reform, looal management) (Dootoral
dissertation, Columbia University, 1993) .
Pro-Quest Abstraots, AAC 9400556.
•
Goodson, B. D., & Hess, R. D. (1976). The effeots of
parent training programs on ohild performanoe and
parent behavior (ERIC Dooument Reproduotion
Servioe No. ED 136 912) .
Grolniok, W. S., Apostoleris, N., & Rosen, S. (1995).
Sooioeoonomio and family prediotors of parent
involvement: A multidiiaensional approaoh.
Paper presented at 1995 annual meeting of the
Amerioan Eduoational Researoh Assooiation, San
Franoisoo, CA.
Grolniok, W. S., & Slowiaozek, M. L. (1994). Parents'
involvement in ohildren's sohooling: A
multidimentional oonoeptualization and motivational
model. Child Development, 65 (1), 237-252.
Herman, J. L., & Yeh, J. P. (1983) . Some effeots of
parent involvement in sohools. The Urban Review,
15(1), 11-17.
29
28
Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P. R., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V.,
Moroney, R. M., Shayne, M., & Weeks, K. A. (1984) .
Strengthening families: S crategies for child care
and parent education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Basslar, 0. C., & Briccie, J. S.
(1987) . Parent involvement: Contributions of
teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and
other school characteristics. American
Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 417-435.
■
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, 0. C., & Brissie, J. S.
(1992). Explorations in parent-school relations.
Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 287-294.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, 0. C., & Burow, R.
(1995) . Parents' reported involvement in
students' homework: Strategies and practices. The
Elementary School Journal, 95 (5), 435-450.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Jones, K.P. (1997).
Parental role construction and parental involvement
in children's education. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995) .
Parental involvement in children's education: Why
does it make a difference? Teachers College
Record, 97(2), 310-331.
O
ERIC
30
29
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do
parents become involved in their children's
education? Revie>^ of Eduoacional Research,
^(1), 3-42.
Keith, T., Bickley, P., & Singh, K. (1992).
Effects of parental involvement on eighth grade
achievement: Lisrel analysis of NELS-88 data.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 347 640) .
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in
family-school relationships: The importance of
cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60
National association of Secondary School Principals.
(1995). Helping middle level and high school
students develop trust, respect and self-
confidence. NASSP-Practi tioner, 21 (4), 1-5.
Okey, T. N., & Cusick, P. A. (1995) . Dropping out:
Another side of the story. Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly, 31 (2), 244-267.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991) .
Measurement, design, and analysis. An integrated
Approach . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates .
O
ERIC
31
30
Podell/ D. M./ & Soodak/ L. C. (1993).
Teacher efficacy and bias in special education
refei rals. Journal- of Educa '. ional Research^
^(4) , 247-253) .
Powell, D. R. (1978) . Correlates of parent-teacher
communication, frequency and diversity .
Journal of Educational Research, 71 (6), 333-341.
St. Clair, B., & Hough, D. L. (1992). Interdisciplinary
teaching: A review of the literature.
Southwest Missouri Stat Univ., Springfield.
Department of Curriculum and Instruction (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. 373 056) .
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P, (1987). The family-
school relation and the child's school
performance. Child Development, 58 (5) , 1348-1357.
32
4 .
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
Title: VXe
Author(s): s,^ ^
Corporate Source:
Publication Date:
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2A documents
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
MICROFICHE. AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
BEEN GRANTED BY
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
X?
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
2A
2B
Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B
!
I
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination In microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.
If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1 .
Sign
here,-*
r^tt^se
• ERiC
/ hereby grant to the Educationai Resources information Center (ERiC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERiC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERiC employees and its system
contractors requires permissbn from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproductbn by Hbraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
Signature; ^
Printed Name/Position/Title:
k^rert /Assoc. Pt'o'P.
Orflanization/Address: rS>'Af "
Teiephone:^. . .
S-/^~YL3-i>77o
E-Maii Address: , <
(over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management
1 787 Agate Street
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5207
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or If making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
1100 West Street, Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: 301-497-4080
Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263
er|c
-088 (Rev. 9/97)
e-mall: erlcfac@lnet.ed.gov
WWW: http://ericfac.plccard.csc.com
PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11